AUTH/2538/10/12: Ex-employee/Director v AstraZeneca (Seroquel investor presentations) – no breach on appeal | PMCPA Case

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/2538/10/12
Parties	Ex-employee/Director v AstraZeneca
Medicine / subject	Seroquel (quetiapine) – presentations referencing weight/tolerability
Material	Five presentations on AstraZeneca corporate website (investor archive)
Issue	Alleged similarity to previously prohibited weight-profile claim and alleged breach of undertaking
Clauses considered	Clauses 2, 9.1 and 25
Panel decision	Initially ruled a breach of Clause 25 (and consequently Clauses 9.1 and 2) in relation to one slide; other presentations not caught
Appeal outcome	No breach of Clause 25 and consequently no breaches of Clauses 2 and 9.1 (appeal successful)
Complaint received	30 October 2012
Case completed	13 February 2013
Applicable Code year	2012
Source	https://www.pmcpa.org.uk/cases/completed-cases/auth25381012-ex-employeedirector-v-astrazeneca

Reviewed by Dr Anzal Qurbain (FFPM) — ABPI Final Signatory

🤖

Got a question about this case?

Ask one of our 13 specialist ABPI advisors — instant answers, 24/7.

Ask AskAnzal AI

🎬 Expert Video Walkthrough

🎬

Video walkthrough — coming for members

Subscribe now and get expert video analysis for every case as we publish them.

Subscribe — from £299/yr

📋

⌄

An ex-employee referenced earlier Seroquel case history and alleged five archived presentations on AstraZeneca’s corporate website (astrazeneca.com) made similar (allegedly false) weight-related claims.
The PMCPA asked AstraZeneca to respond in relation to Clauses 2, 9.1 and 25 (undertakings).
The presentations were described by AstraZeneca as historic, investor-focused, non-promotional, not certified, and difficult to find (archived, not tagged, multiple clicks from homepage).
The Panel considered whether corporate website material fell within the UK Code and whether any claims were sufficiently similar to a previously prohibited claim covered by an undertaking given in March 2010.
The Panel initially found one slide (in a 2002 “Development Portfolio Review” presentation) could be read as implying Seroquel was uniquely “weight-neutral in the long-term”, and therefore breached the undertaking.
AstraZeneca appealed, arguing the slide presented a “unique tolerability profile” as a combination of factors, not that each factor (including weight-neutrality) was unique to Seroquel.

⚖️

⌄

Final outcome (Appeal Board): No breach of the Code.
The Appeal Board ruled the presentation was within the scope of the Code because it was information about, inter alia, a prescription only medicine (Seroquel) on AstraZeneca’s website; the age of the material was irrelevant.
The Appeal Board concluded the claim “weight-neutral in the long-term” appeared as one of four sub-bullets contributing to a “Unique tolerability profile” and was not sufficiently similar to the previously prohibited “only atypical… favourable weight profile” claim to be covered by the undertaking.
Therefore, no breach of Clause 25 and consequently no breaches of Clauses 2 and 9.1.

🔒

Members get the complete breakdown — Clauses, Sanction, Signatory Lens, Audit checklist, and 3 Key Questions.

Best value

£249/year

Annual — save £99

£29/mo

Monthly

Join Now — Instant Access